Recently, I was forced to endure through a frustratingly close-minded discussion in my usually enjoyable AP Art History class.
We were discussing the Dada movement, a movement that was supposed to be a slap in the face of Classical art conventions. So my teacher brought up Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain"
and proceeded to ask us, "Is this art?"
Almost immediately, I came to the conclusion it was. However, I was rather surprised that my Art History teacher disagreed, bringing up a slide of Michaelangelo's David:
protesting "How can you compare it to this? 'The Fountain' is not art."
I was stunned. IMO, art is not about the effort put into making the piece a reality. Art is an idea, manifested into a physical, tangible form. So to me, he was saying that the "Fountain" was less of an idea than "David."
Then, my teacher pulled up a desk and said, "So, if I put this in a gallery and say that it's 'art,' is it really art?"
Absurd. Of course it is. You have an idea, a premise for the world to see and deconstruct. You have a point to prove and you created a way of expressing your point and getting it across. Congratulations, you have made art.
And of course the ignorance continued. When we were reviewing Pop Art, some idiot classmate had the balls to quip that none of what we were currently reviewing was art because they all "did it for money."
Are you fucking serious? Were you even paying attention in the entire year you dumbfuck? Most of the "Classical" art that we went through, the ones that you said were done because they wanted to do art, were paid for by patrons. Yes, idiot, people paid artists to make art, and yet, because they got paid to make them, that makes them more "artistic" than modern art. Fuck off.
Then, another one of my more annoyingly idiotic classmates said that she would never listen to music that artists made "for the money," to which I had to look at her and ask, "Are you fucking stupid, or just acting?"
Everyone makes art for the money at first. No one becomes a full-time artist saying, "You know what I want to do when I grow up? Starve myself and make absolutely no money!" I think people who say that one of their goals in art is to make money are just honest, and although it makes them seem a bit pretentious, I respect that they are forthright about their true intentions. Anyone in the business who says they're making art for art's sake at first is failing to mention the money they want to make.
I just hope my classmates revert back to their quiet and more amusing dumbassedness as the year finishes.
Well said. When I studied dadaism as it pertains to writing (they had this whole idea about 'automatic' writing and used this technique called 'oulipo' amongst other things to produce surreal, imaginative writing) and whether that succeeds or not for the individual's/audience's idea of a digestible aesthetic is beside the point. Art is art precisely because the person who made it decided to make what he or she was making with the intention of it being art. Art is all about the intent. That's why computers and animals can't really make art...they don't have the agency to intend to do anything as cognitively abstract as decide to produce art.
ReplyDeleteAs for the money thing, I agree and disagree. With film making and music, which are both highly lucrative art forms commercially, there are people who do it for the money and we think of them as Plebeian hacks. People like Michael Bay, who make movies for purely commercial gains, or bands like Nickelback, who everyone hates since they have no perceived artistic vision, fit into this category. I write poetry. There's no money in poetry, therefore I must supplement my writing with something else. Indeed, the patronage system made things easy, but many of those artist resisted doing work on commission, or if they did, they were given artistic freedom to interpret such commissions. There's no doubt to me people make movies or music for money because those both make money, still turn anonymous people into famous ones. Writing poetry or literary fiction, making fine art, etc. don't inspire the same level of financial pursuit. Making money off your art is a pipe dream, at best.
I do think it is silly though to dismiss someone's art because it was made to make money so long as that is not the artist's only purpose for making the art in question. Those divisions can be difficult to perceive...those between artists who make things primarily for their own sake, and those who do so for money.
Anyway, it sounds like your teacher is letting his or her agenda and aesthetic ideas narrow discussion of what art is, which is sad considering high school students should be taught in as broadminded a way as possible about these things. That kind of narrow-minded grand standing is counterproductive to understanding and appreciating art.
Haha, that was a lot. Just some thoughts. Hope it's at least somewhat interesting :-P